Nauticam Fisheye Conversion Port

[Ryan 57]

The Fisheye Conversion Port is not an immanent release. The optical design isn't fixed, so everything is subject to change. This was a teaser to show where we are headed, and showcase the ongoing optical design that separates us from other housing manufacturers.  The goal is similar compatibility as WACP-1, so someone could travel with those two conversion ports and cover 180 deg and narrower with superior image quality than can be achieved with lenses behind domes.

Exceeding the optical performance of the very good Canon 8-15 and Nikon 8-15 fisheye lenses is no small task, but that is the goal.

I'm really liking what I'm seeing from Sony FE 28-60 f/4.5-5.6, Canon RF 24-50mm F4.5-6.3 IS STM, and NIKKOR Z 24-50mm f/4-6.3.  These all have compatibility with both a wet mount lens (WWL-1B and WWL-C, depending upon model) and WACP, and produce fantastic results with either.  WWL for a more casual user that prioritizes versatility and small size for travel, and WACP for the absolute image quality connoisseur.

Edited June 8 by Ryan

[Phil Rudin 485]

Thanks for the clarification Ryan, looking forward to the final release. Loving the simplicity of the Sony FE 28-60 with WACP-C. It travels well and has replaced in most cases my Sony 12-24 zoom.

Also interested to see if the fisheye will be released in both N120 and N100 mounts.

Edited June 8 by Phil Rudin

[ColdDarkDiver 28]

1 hour ago, Ryan said:

, Canon RF 24-50mm F4.5-6.3 IS STM

It would be wonderful to get increased information on adapting this lens to Nauticam optics.  Its not listed on any of the port charts for the WWL-C, or the WACP-C or WACP-1 - all of which would be wonderful to know if and how they work.  Especially for Full Frame.  Is that information forthcoming? And thank you for commenting on this thread. I look forward to seeing this (hopefully) reach production.

[Interceptor121 843]

1 hour ago, ColdDarkDiver said:

It would be wonderful to get increased information on adapting this lens to Nauticam optics.  Its not listed on any of the port charts for the WWL-C, or the WACP-C or WACP-1 - all of which would be wonderful to know if and how they work.  Especially for Full Frame.  Is that information forthcoming? And thank you for commenting on this thread. I look forward to seeing this (hopefully) reach production.

This works already 

 

 

[Alex_Mustard 0]

Couple of updates. 

I put the FCP on my kitchen scales - 2.8KG. For comparison Nauticam 230mm dome is listed as 2.6KG. 

The FCP is quite a bit smaller than WACP-1.

I have been looking into it in the pool. I found it very sharp. Zoom range is definitely bigger than Tokina 10-17mm offers, which is fantastic. Can't wait to get it in the Red Sea - it is going to be amazing. 

[Walt Stearns 54]

Alex, what lens are you using in conjunction with the fisheye conversion port?

 

[Interceptor121 843]

Alex, what lens are you using in conjunction with the fisheye conversion port?
 

My guess sony 28-60mm


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Alex_Mustard 0]

Sorry for the slow reply. I had to check in with Nauticam to check what they are happy for me to share. I am using an FCP prototype, Nauticam have an idea to improve design for the production version. So this lens is worse-case in terms of performance. And I am already very impressed and very happy to use it as a main lens on my next trip - as in my view it already out performs all other options.

I used the Sony 28-60mm last night. These photos below - taken of the same subject from the same position show (the very large) range of FOV this combo creates. A 28-70mm would provide even more! Top FCP with 28mm, bottom zoomed in to 60mm. My image shows unprocessed files in Lightroom.

 

[Phil Rudin 485]

Alex, With your Sony A1 and NA-A1 housing are you using the N100 to N120 35.5 port adapter or does Nauticam have an N100 version of FCP?

[Alex_Mustard 0]

The one I have is N100 - so I am not using an adaptor. But I think the one in your post at the top of the thread is N120. 

[Ryan 57]

On 6/8/2023 at 11:50 AM, ColdDarkDiver said:

It would be wonderful to get increased information on adapting this lens to Nauticam optics.  Its not listed on any of the port charts for the WWL-C, or the WACP-C or WACP-1 - all of which would be wonderful to know if and how they work.  Especially for Full Frame.  Is that information forthcoming? And thank you for commenting on this thread. I look forward to seeing this (hopefully) reach production.

These port charts were updated last night.  There is a bit of testing ongoing, so there might be a few tweaks going forward.  WWL-C is exciting for me personally - really good performance, the only niggle being a touch of vignette in the extreme corners in raw files.  The in camera lens corrections for JPG knock this out, as would a gentle LR lens correct.  

https://www.nauticam.com/pages/n120-canon-r-mount-port-chart

FPC and WACP compatibility is fantastic too, but WWL-C checks a lot of boxes for many, and I believe the image quality is superior to anything I ever shot behind a dome at an equivalent FOV.  

[Phil Rudin 485]

So is the N100 version a direct mount to the housing or is an N100 extension required?

 

[Architeuthis 192]

1 hour ago, Ryan said:

These port charts were updated last night.  There is a bit of testing ongoing, so there might be a few tweaks going forward.  WWL-C is exciting for me personally - really good performance, the only niggle being a touch of vignette in the extreme corners in raw files.  The in camera lens corrections for JPG knock this out, as would a gentle LR lens correct.  

https://www.nauticam.com/pages/n120-canon-r-mount-port-chart

FPC and WACP compatibility is fantastic too, but WWL-C checks a lot of boxes for many, and I believe the image quality is superior to anything I ever shot behind a dome at an equivalent FOV.  

This is very interesting, thanks...

What about the Sony and Sigma 24-70mm FE lenses for Sony FE mount? Is it already known, wehter they would fit the WWL-C?

 

Wolfgang

[Matt Sullivan 27]

@Ryan is the anticipation that this fisheye conversion port will work with similar lenses to the WACP1/C (and in some cases WWL-C)?

[Ryan 57]

My expectation is the lens compatibility will be similar to WACP-1, but as I've mentioned before this is preliminary and subject to change.

[Alex_Mustard 0]

6 hours ago, Phil Rudin said:

So is the N100 version a direct mount to the housing or is an N100 extension required?

 

Yes, it did have a short custom N100 extension (that I could take off). I didn't measure it, but it is small, smaller than any of the rings I had previously (less than an inch). But I also don't know if the FCP I am testing is a one-off prototype and it actually may be different to the Nauticam USA one. 

I know there was some confusion after I shared info about the WWL-Dry lens - the WACP-C prototype - in relation to the WACP-C. So I think it is best that we avoid setup specifics for now so it doesn't confuse matters in the future. I am using the 28-60mm at the moment, but the production version may favour a different lens. 

What i can say is that I am already totally happy to use this setup as my main lens in the Red Sea. And Nauticam have a way to make it even better - which makes me very excited for the actual FCP. 

 

[roberto.formiga 16]

On 6/14/2023 at 3:12 PM, Alex_Mustard said:

Sorry for the slow reply. I had to check in with Nauticam to check what they are happy for me to share. I am using an FCP prototype, Nauticam have an idea to improve design for the production version. So this lens is worse-case in terms of performance. And I am already very impressed and very happy to use it as a main lens on my next trip - as in my view it already out performs all other options.

I used the Sony 28-60mm last night. These photos below - taken of the same subject from the same position show (the very large) range of FOV this combo creates. A 28-70mm would provide even more! Top FCP with 28mm, bottom zoomed in to 60mm. My image shows unprocessed files in Lightroom.

 

Good to hear that the results are good so far! I really miss the ability to zoom with a fisheye lens after moving to a full frame setup. The possibility to have it back (and hopefully with better performance than a Tokina combined with an APS-C sensor) is thrilling. One question: does it focus on air like the WACP-1 in order to allow split shots or it's more like the WACP-C that doesn't have this characteristic?

[Alex_Mustard 0]

The FCP has had a full week of diving now in the Red Sea.

On the rare occasions it was not on my camera I lent it to six other photographers on my workshop (4 x Sony FF, 1 x Nikon FF SLR, 1 x Canon FF SLR). Everyone loved it from the first minute of the first dive - as it is simply exactly the FOV range they've always wanted. I know at least one has emailed in their order to Backscatter from the boat (irrespective of price and production date!).

Here is a photo of my buddy Nick More diving with the FCP - the lens looks bigger than it is here because it is closer to my lens. I was shooting the WWL to take this one.

Looking forward to my second workshop starting and getting it back in the water tomorrow.

[Alex_Mustard 0]

This image shows the zoom range of the FCP with Sony 28-60mm. Nikon Z 24-50mm would offer a bit less, Nikon SLR 28-70mm a bit more. These are two photos of the back of our liveaboard, one taken at 28mm (darkened) and one at 60mm, from the same spot. I've scaled, brightened and overlaid the 60mm shot over the 28mm.

The FCP FOV view range is a very wide and very useful range.

[fruehaufsteher2 23]

Really exciting!

But to clarify and without detailed specs: The FCP differs from lets say WACP-C mostly in the field of view (much wider) - is that true?

WACP-C with 28-60 has 69°-130° - the FCP should go up to 180°?

[Sokrates 2]

On 6/27/2023 at 11:17 AM, fruehaufsteher2 said:

Really exciting!

But to clarify and without detailed specs: The FCP differs from lets say WACP-C mostly in the field of view (much wider) - is that true?

WACP-C with 28-60 has 69°-130° - the FCP should go up to 180°?

I have WACP-C with Sony 28-60 and wondering same.

Or actually can i manage with FCP only, i really dont want to pack both for trips(luggage restrictions)

[ChrisRoss 150]

11 hours ago, Sokrates said:

I have WACP-C with Sony 28-60 and wondering same.

Or actually can i manage with FCP only, i really dont want to pack both for trips(luggage restrictions)

It depends on how important being able to zoom is to you.   I played around trying to fit the WACP figures Nauticam supplies to a fisheye projection and it appears like it might be a combination of a rectilinear and fisheye style projections.  If you assume the FCP has similar characteristics and a maximum field of view of 180° diagonal then you can estimate fields of view and I've done that:

This is an estimate of the field of view range compared to what you get with the WACP.  There is some overlap so you could work out how often you use the WACP zoomed in beyond a 99 deg diagonal, or zoomed in more than 45mm on the lens or so.  These figures are of course educated guesses and might be up to about 10° out, depending on the projection that the FCP uses.

 

[Interceptor121 843]

On 6/29/2023 at 3:56 AM, ChrisRoss said:

It depends on how important being able to zoom is to you.   I played around trying to fit the WACP figures Nauticam supplies to a fisheye projection and it appears like it might be a combination of a rectilinear and fisheye style projections.  If you assume the FCP has similar characteristics and a maximum field of view of 180° diagonal then you can estimate fields of view and I've done that:

This is an estimate of the field of view range compared to what you get with the WACP.  There is some overlap so you could work out how often you use the WACP zoomed in beyond a 99 deg diagonal, or zoomed in more than 45mm on the lens or so.  These figures are of course educated guesses and might be up to about 10° out, depending on the projection that the FCP uses.

 

From what I have measured all underwater optics fall short a long way from theoretical models because the focus distance is shorter than infinity where the field of view of the lens on land is measured

I am not sure how nauticam comes to their specifications and if this is a theoretical or measured number by master lens

[ChrisRoss 150]

5 hours ago, Interceptor121 said:

From what I have measured all underwater optics fall short a long way from theoretical models because the focus distance is shorter than infinity where the field of view of the lens on land is measured

I am not sure how nauticam comes to their specifications and if this is a theoretical or measured number by master lens

Perhaps but the reduction in view from a 180° fisheye should be somewhat consistent and useful for at least comparison.  Be interesting to see if their lens is wider than a standard fisheye lens when focusing close.

[Interceptor121 843]

18 minutes ago, ChrisRoss said:

Perhaps but the reduction in view from a 180° fisheye should be somewhat consistent and useful for at least comparison.  Be interesting to see if their lens is wider than a standard fisheye lens when focusing close.

The horizontal fov of the fisheye is 2.1x wider from that picture Alex posted

Assuming the other lens fov is correct that would give an  horizontal of 140 degreesand diagonal of 174 degrees.

This is just a tad narrower than the theoretical fov of the canon 8-15The equation does not work very well at the extremes and is not exact

However I doubt very much that the fov of the WWL-1 is 130 degrees diagonal 106 horizontal

I see this option attractive for full frame users who do not want to go for a tc and want more zoom however for APSC and MFT there is already a full working solution that will cost overall less

Edited June 30 by Interceptor121